| Title |
The Value-Action Gap in Waste Recycling: The Case of Undergraduates in Hong Kong
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, July 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-006-0363-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shan-Shan Chung, Monica Miu-Yin Leung |
| Abstract |
The discrepancy between verbal and actual commitment in waste recycling and environmental behavior is thought to have attenuated the effectiveness of many environmental policy and measures. Studies purport to show the existence of such a value-action gap in environmental issues has been largely based on matching the verbal commitment to environmental value through self-reported environmental behavioral data. Therefore, there is a lack of direct evidence to prove that such a discrepancy exists. This study demonstrates a methodology (contrasting on-site observation with self-reported results) to measure the gap between verbal commitment and actual recycling behavior and provides an explanation on the recycling behavior of students at Hong Kong Baptist University in the hope that the lessons learnt can be generalized to a wider context. Our findings indicate that a gap between verbal recycling commitment and corresponding action does exist in waste recycling on this university campus. By using multiple linear regression analysis, we found that the self-reported recycling behavior of undergraduates cannot be meaningfully explained by most variables previously suggested in the general value-action model. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 24 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,312,648
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#310
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,358
of 77,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 77,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.